Re: SSTV on transponder sats

Thanks to all for your replies.
I wanted to get a consensus of opinion on using SSTV before I get accused of
bad operating!
And of course I hadn't thought about the fact that you'd be running SSB
instead of FM, so the bandwidth isn't a problem.
73 Howard G6LVB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Langdon" <tlang@freeway.apana.org.au>
To: <amsat-bb@AMSAT.Org>
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] SSTV on transponder sats
>
> Hello Howard!
>
> 02 Oct 00 08:29, you wrote to All:
>
> HL> Although I've not tried it myself, I have heard SSTV on the
> HL> transponder sats. Generally I'm not aware of this being thought of as
> HL> bad practice, although I may be wrong.
> HL>
> HL> So my question is: What's the difference between running SSTV and FM
> HL> voice when it comes to bandwidth and power budget?
>
> Power-none, both use 100% duty cycle. However, SSTV uses a similar amount
of
> bandwidth to SSB, as SSTV is designed to be able to be sent over an
ordinary
> SSB transceiver. So there is a bandwidth advantage to using SSTV over FM
> voice.
>
> The lower bandwidth requirements of SSTV does have an implicit power
advantage,
> in that less uplink power (and therefor transponder power) should be
required
> to achieve an acceptable S/N on the downlink.
>
> Tony, VK3JED
>
> .. I've been to the paradise... it's called the DEATH STAR!!!
> --
> |Fidonet: Tony Langdon 3:633/284.18
> |Internet: tlang@freeway.apana.org.au
> |
> | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
>
>
> ----
> Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
> To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org
>
----
Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org